Real Science vs Bro Science: Ohhh some of you are NOT going to like this!

[pop22]

and this may make it clearer

https://statisticsbyjim.com/basics/anecdotal-evidence/

https://study.com/academy/lesson/an...observation, measurement, and experimentation.

 

[Sour D]

what bs are you talking about?

Which bs are you referring to? Broscience or real science?

 

[WildBill]

Linda Chalker is no corporate shill and works for the University of Washington. Yes, science needs policing too, that's why there are peer reviews. It doesn't change the facts from studies that are conclusive. And anecdotal "evidence" is rarely accurate or even correct. Just because you see something occur, it proves nothing as you don't actually know what caused the changes, good or bad. Bro science is like saying 10,000 monkeys with typewriters could write War and Peace......... Nope!

I wasn't commenting on Linda specifically. I was just commenting of how actual studies on coffee has waxed and waned over the MANY decades I have been consuming it.
The "Scientific Method" is just that, a method. When it's adhered to, you get solid results. Problems arise when the set parameters are not consistent and not adhered to. Hence the vastly different results of stidies of consuming coffee.

 

[Son of Hobbes]

And anecdotal "evidence" is rarely accurate or even correct.

Ah but anecdotal evidence is still extremely valuable and helpful in our day to day lives. Anecdotes are what provoke us to ask the questions; but it's analytical data that should be providing the real answer.

Broscience is anecdotes accepted as factual science, instead of using actual science to prove the point.

 

[Sour D]

Linda Chalker is no corporate shill and works for the University of Washington.

I doubt the UofW funds very little research. She said herself if you want to see research done on something you have to find a "sponsor" to put up the money

 

[Sour D]

Heck, the Farmers Almanac is a lot of broscience yet there are a whole lot of people that believe and live by it. Course there may be just as many that have it sitting in the rack next to the toilet.

 

[Sour D]

If it weren't for broscience, this forum prolly wouldn't exist.

 

[Fitzy]

This was an awsome listen and a lot makes sense for sure just like how flushing made 0 sense for example I mean how do you magically remove something from within a cell wall ect. I'm still a firm believer in the keep it simple method especially when I ran a side by side test with photos 1 plant was fed a 2 to 1 to 1 ratio of npk so if I used a teaspoon of n then 1/2 a teaspoon was used on p and k now @ about 400ppm to 500ppm was the highest I needed to go and the plant that was getting closer to 900ppm did fine till mid/late flower which then it looked like a deficiency set in over night when I flushed it I saw 2000+ ppm readings so I've seen a lot of wat was said hear aswell as that last 1 you posted I missed this when they did it hope to hear/see new ones as cannabis is so interesting. She basically says look to traditional methods there is zero products out there that grow cannabis any better and 90% of bottle nutes supposedly for cannabis are not only wrong ratios but too much and if it was so good it would be used in other crops which you don't see another thing she was explaining is that kelp meal azomite and quite a few others need to come from real quality places or u could be introducing heavy metals ect same with compost and that putting a arborist wood chip mulch setup is far superior to anything else but do not incorporate into soil strictly mulch card board plastics landscape fabric all reduce growth aswell as tilling which isn't healthy so topdress is only real option she also touched on companion plants and studies show it's only beneficial if soil is missing something she explained it well by saying its like a shrub in the dessert once that's established bc it casts a shadow and changes the soil slightly other things begin to grow so honestly it's worth the listen for sure and if you don't your shorting yourself imho so thanks @pop22
Ps does anyone flush there normal gardens when growing tomatoes or bean or squash ect nope no back yard growers and definitely not large scale operations that produce or food so why would we as those items like tobacco arnt either and we consume all of those things just something to think about.

 

[Son of Hobbes]

If it weren't for broscience, this forum prolly wouldn't exist.

i think they call that lazy

No cannabis forum would exist without "bro science." The research of cannabis hasn't exactly been widely supported up until recently, so as cannabis growers we've been left to our own devices to try to piece together what is, isn't, how things work, etc. As the real science catches up, it either validates that "bro science" or it corrects it, but it's in getting people to accept it that's probably the harder challenge.

 

[Sour D]

heh

so they are both bullshit?

I don't think either is total bs but there is bs in both circles. How else do you explain the bs going on with the Rona?

As to flushing- IMHO, you need to remember that legal weed is being treated a whole lot stricter than any other food products. If you have to submit to testing and you use salt nutrients and no flush there is a real chance you will fail. If you use organics in pots, beds You will prolly be safe. If you plant in the ground- the soil could be contaminated from some previous use. If you have another farm close by you could get screwed because they are using a spray that's banned for weed but is ok on oranges.